CGI = computer generated graphics.

Human made CGI involves working with video editors, 3d model/texture/render, animation using math and physics (eg: coefficient of viscosity for fluid, friction, gravity, force etc), and many other awesome tools to do these things.

AI produced CGI involves 0 of those things. Let's say you want to produce an animation of water flowing through the tube. Traditional CGI is the human way, involves math & physics and a lot of computation.

Now imagine training a neural network with millions of moving images of fluid of various viscosity and making it able to guess every next frame, if you give a start (context) and current state of the fluid (particles), it would be able to predict every frame after that. It was trained on data we generated using math & physics, and now it doesn't need it.

Just like you when you learned how to ride a bicycle. Go figure.

I'll just note that this prediction hinges on capitalism being basically unassailable by AI.

Could be a totally fair bet

Still, if it is still human-comparable brain at the moment, it's possibilities are much more limited than of omnimachine.

Also, AI deviations like that could be easier to diagnosys than in human or bigger machine, because his memory is a limited amount of data, probably directly readable.

Maybe that's why ChatGPT isn't allowed on the internet.

ChatGPT feeding Dall-e image prompts would be a fountain of AI shit spreading across the internet.

"Welp, no going back now..."

Currently, AI can generate text that is coherent and reasonably well-written, but it is not yet capable of writing a book that is comparable in quality to one written by a human. GPT-3, the most advanced AI language model available to the public, can generate text that is relatively coherent and well-written, but it is still limited in its ability to create truly original and engaging stories.

It is difficult to predict exactly when an AI will be able to write a book that is comparable in quality to one written by a human. The development of AI and its capabilities is a rapidly evolving field, and it will likely depend on advances in natural language processing, machine learning, and other related technologies.

It's also important to note that while AI can generate text that is coherent and relatively well-written, it still lacks creativity and originality that are essential elements of a good book. It is unlikely that an AI will be able to write a truly great book without human-like creativity and understanding of human emotions.

And what else can I tell you honestly, with the utmost sincerity!!! Don't use articles written by AI... no matter how good the program is. Google prints you and penalizes you. And if you use them, use them only as ideas, nothing more. Professional advice. Google is smart as hell.

Now get ChatGPT to explain it in the style of a Nick Cave song.

Same approach I’ve taken with moderate success. After awhile though, you can definitely tell it’s lost some of the context.

Actually I think I came up with a response myself:

If we're going to get close to very capable levels of intelligence with current ML models this means they are extremely computationally expensive to train, but multiple orders of magnitude cheaper to use.

So that means if this technology principals remain similar there will be a significant time frame between AI generations - which could in principle allow competition.

Maybe we also overestimate the rate of growth of intelligence, maybe it'll grow with significant diminishing returns so say rogue AI being technically superintendent vs any given human might not be superintendent enough to counter whole humanity AND benevolent lesser AI's together.

Which IMO creates a more complex and more interesting version of the world post AGI

But what if they cannot stop them because they went too far, and played a game of acting as normal as possible? I.e. a misaligned ASI might be fed data, information, and be trained, and have the ability to self improve for years before there is any sign of misalignment.

It'll look great... until it isn't. And due to the nature of intelligence, this is 0% predictable.

Oh I gotcha

AI is not a replacement for the human in the same way that a human is not a replacement for bacteria.

AI will be another lobe. One that sits on top of the entire society and unifies humans into a single body.

Look at our legal system and our tech. The act of writing things down on paper. All of these are crude attempts at unifying humans. Religion is a more ancient way.

To put it in a historical perspective humans have been organizing themselves to become a single entity

First it was religion, then “common law”, then globalization, and the final step will be AI.

Religion evolved over 10 thousand years. Secular law evolved over a few hundred. Globalization a hundred. AI will be decades.

The next 10-20 years we will see more progress than the last 10 thousand combined.

Not if others will drag those down when they go too far.

I am saying that this is already the inevitable consequence. Lack of dominance of some sort is intrinsically an unstable equilibrium. You could try as you might to make it equal, but you will just create a system where the most willing and able to dominate dominates.

I think that instead of rigidly declaring 'here's how we're going to put the pieces together', you should make a library where existing models can be automatically used and connected together to form what I call an "AGI candidate".

That way we over iteration against an "AGI test bench" find increasingly complex architectures that perform well. We do not need the AGI to think like we do, it just needs to think as well as possible. (as determined by it's rms score on the tasks in the test bench)

>Which studies? Link ‘‘em and I’ll be happy to knock them down.

You are not a rational actor and can't be trusted. You believe without evidence that everyone is equal because that's 'woke'. If it turns out that everyone is not equal you would not be able to accept the possibility and would have to start seeking false explanations.

It's partially learned, partially talent, partially experience.

I'd like that, but what is your reasoning against intelligence explosion theory?

Like say someone comes up with a system that is smart enough to be able to recursively improve itself faster than humans. Say some AI lab was testing a new approach and came up with a new system that can improve itself. But this cascaded into a very rapid sequence that improved intelligence beyond our wild imaginations faster than humans were able to react.

Nick Bostrom described something like that IIRC.

What do you counter it with?

Very interesting results so far, because the dominant impression I get from this sub is that a single AGI will take over everything.

I personally think multiple companies or groups will develop different AGI through different methods, and they'll all be valid in their own ways. I don't think there's any one route to AGI, and even our own brains vary wildly from one another. It would actually be nice if we had such variety, so maybe a particular cognitive architecture could be paired with an individual to best help them, either because they operate similarly or very differently depending on their needs.

As for the form it will take, that's hard to tell. I think at first it may take a small supercomputer to develop it, but by the time it's ready for public use, computers will have changed a lot, and maybe we'll have similar specs in a much smaller package. If it's little more than software, it should be able to adapt, and hopefully we'll be able to install it on just about anything that can support it.

It can already do that. What you might want to be curious about is when will it formulate its will to write that book.

What you describe is #1 - singular AGI without any caveats.

Which means you probably subscribe to intelligence explosion theory - otherwise it's very difficult to imagine singular entity to dominate.

Easy. Make a human one part of this system. He will figure the rest.

In world with AI, last thing that we want is inequality. Because inequality, competiteveness and social darvinism, while was drivers of the progress and prosperity in the past, is a guaranteed way to an Unaligned SuperAI.

> Maybe from technological standpoint but it will take time for humans to adopt it.

Look at what happened with ChatGPT. There is no adoption on-ramp, it was released to the world and now educational institutes are scrabbling to play catch up.

You can bet if a headline reads 'china cures [x]' where x is anything from aging to cancer to any much sort after medical treatment, that timelines will be shortened due to public pressure.

Exactly, then these systems can perpetually talk to one another and generate inputs.

Sounds similar to a human brain. Even people seem to describe their thoughts differently to one another, some being more visual thinkers, while others are verbal thinkers.

I have a hard time even imagining thinking in words first. It's all images, space and logic, and words flow from that for me, rather than being verbal. I always have an inner monologue, but it always seems to flow from an intuitive/spatial sense.